Bryan, just like a friend of mine that is sponsored by Sigma in Canada, was pleasantly surprised about how much they like the lens. I keep hearing the build quality, optical quality and focal range are very useful on a day-to-day basis.

From Bryan

“It is hard not to like a great looking lens with a 120-300mm focal length range in a non-extending, solidly built body that also feels great – and delivers image quality that leaves most other zoom lenses wanting even at this lens’ wide max f/2.8 aperture. I like the direction Sigma has been going with their recent lenses and I think they have another hit with the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens.”

My biggest (and only one so far) concern is about the reach. I've read a couple of times that the Siggy is shorter @ 300mm than the canon fixed 3002.8ISII. Those reviews were about the previous model of 120-300 but it ain't supposed to be optically different from the brand new one.

If this was real, the Sigma wouldn't be as interesting as it seems...Ideally i'd buy it to complement my 70-200 as the 120-300 remains really cheaper than the Canon 300mm and i often need an extra reach that a 300mm (or 420 with 1.4x) would bring me.

Anyone ? Have you ever heard any kind of complaints like this ?Does anyone could compare the reach of the 120-300 to the 300L ?

Given all I have heard and read so far, I see no reason why this new lens does not represent excellent value for money! If I could afford it, I would just buy one without even trying it out first. As for the extra reach, there's always the 1.4x teleconverter. Whether or not the IQ degrades too much with Sigma's 2x TC, it seems to me that it's really more their 2x TC that is the weak link. Perhaps Sigma will introduce a series two teleconverter designed to work well with this lens...and preferably a 1.7x model...because I feel that is more useful than 2x.

My biggest (and only one so far) concern is about the reach. I've read a couple of times that the Siggy is shorter @ 300mm than the canon fixed 3002.8ISII. Those reviews were about the previous model of 120-300 but it ain't supposed to be optically different from the brand new one.

If this was real, the Sigma wouldn't be as interesting as it seems...Ideally i'd buy it to complement my 70-200 as the 120-300 remains really cheaper than the Canon 300mm and i often need an extra reach that a 300mm (or 420 with 1.4x) would bring me.

Anyone ? Have you ever heard any kind of complaints like this ?Does anyone could compare the reach of the 120-300 to the 300L ?

This is addressed in the review:" The also-phenomenal Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II Lens' image quality is seriously challenged by the Sigma 120-300 S. The Sigma costs more in this case, but the 70-200 needs an extender to get out close to 300mm. And it becomes an f/4 lens in that case.

You also may think "280mm is not 300mm". This would be a good time to mention that specified focal lengths are not always exact - especially on zoom lenses. The Canon 300 f/2.8 IS II frames a just-under 4' wide target at 33.19' while the Sigma 120-300 OS S must be moved 2.24' closer (to 30.95') for the same target framing. The Canon 70-200 IS II frames the same target at 29.75' at 280mm (w/ 1.4x) - just 1.2' closer than the Sigma. Basically, the difference between the focal length of these lenses is not very significant. "

So, at 300mm on the Sigma you would need to stand 2 feet closer to a 4 foot wide subject to frame it the same as the Canon 300.

Thanks but i've read that review too. I would appreciate if someone directly compare both models @ 300mm (Siggy and Canon prime).

I don't understand. He did directly compare them and came to the conclusion that if you are taking a picture with the Canon of a subject that is 33.19 feet away, you would have to stand 30.95 feet away to take the same picture with the Sigma. That is a direct comparison.

a couple of drawbacks for me - the weight at 8 lbs (Canon's 300 F2.8 II is 5 Lbs, the mark 1 is similar) and the reach only 300. I would like to see 4-5 Lbs 70-300 F4 (fixed) with IS. Canon's current 70-300L is a great lens but a bit slow. Fixed F4 would make this a real winner and a great alternative to the 200-400 on a APS-C body.

and i would be interesting to see Sigma working on a 200-400 f/4 or a 100-400 f/4-5.6 with the same quality and sharpness...

It likely depends on the sales of the lens. If it sells well, that would be a encouragement to them to spend the money and effort on the bigger zoom. A 200-400mm f/4 might be a tad larger, and, they will want 4K for it.

From what I'm seeing this lens is on my Want list, however I still feel like I need a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens first. 120mm isn't going to be wide enough for most of what I end up shooting, which is smaller inside music venues. The 135mm is good for close ups, 85mm is good for somewhat wider shots, but I'd love to be able to go simply from 70mm to 135+ for more full(er) stage shots, but still able to get in really close and get some artsy type performance shots.

Not bad but it still doesn't look as good as the 70-200 2.8 IS II or 300 2.8 IS II or 300 2.8 IS. I'm not sure it would take 2x TC so well while the 300 primes from Canon can get away with it. Apparently it weights a lot more too which would be really bad. Considering that the TDP seemed to have tested a poor copy of the 70-300L, the sigma seems to perform more in line with that lens (the sigma does look better on his charts at f/5.6, but arguably worse at f/8, and again his 70-300L was bum or poorly tested IMO). Not that 70-300L is something to compare to this since they are for much different purposes.